Unregistered, as a new member your first 5 posts will be subject to moderation.
So if your post is submitted successfully, but does not show up immediately, please be patient, as it may take some time for a moderator to approve it.
Please don't double post.

I'm about as UN-politically correct as they come. I would opt for "mentally retarded son". Why? Because that's what he is. Developmentally disabled? really? The body/mind is/was retarded in it's growth. It was not "disabled". "Disabled" indicates that it was rendered useless. Obviously, if the person is living and breathing, then that simply is not the case. To "retard" something, indicated that it was not allowed to come to it's full maturation. Which usually IS the case in the instance of "mental retardation". Why call a heart, a spade, when it clearly is not?

Couple of things here, not getting on your case, just explaining in case anyone is wondering.

I think retard and retarded probably have such negative connotations associated with them, that it's not polite to use them, even in conjunction with the "proper" words. For example, people hear "mentally retarded" and automatically jump to the noun retard. There was a case in another thread where someone, in passing, referred to poly as a deviant lifestyle. While the deviant part (let's not get into lifestyle, I think that's been beaten to death! ) is technically, dictionary definition correct, that word is so negatively charged that a number of folks took offense to its use. Same deal with retard/retarded in my opinion.

Second, it's not polite to put the disability before the person. When you do that, you're defining the person by their disability, when they are really a person first. So, instead of saying "the blind man", it's better to say "the man with a visual impairment". Person, then disability in sentence.

And of course all this goes out the window when you actually meet someone with a disability, (notice how I didn't say a disabled person!), if they are able to articulate how they would like to be labelled/defined/etc.

Anyway, that's my politically correct speech for the month. I now return to TruckerPete.

It's common to see scientific language shift when a term used in popular culture becomes identified with insult. "Retard", "retarded", "deviant", all perfect examples of this. Often this is part of humane treatment of their subjects/patients, but it can also be to remove negative stigma from a field, or separate the academic study of something from its base nature (which is inherently pretentious), ie "Human Sexuality" rather than "fuckology".

The battle then becomes one between those who are inherently uncompromisingly opposed to pretense, and those who value the separation of academia from human baseness (or the humane treatment of their patients) more than they are opposed to being pretentious. Some people are willing to shift terminology, realizing that it's ultimately semantic so it's best to be humane, whereas others are attached to it and will fight for the perceived sacredness of a word, despite widespread negative stigma attached to it.

As for myself, I entirely understand both sides, and am always annoyed when the scientific community feels obligated to change its terminology because of something the masses have latched onto, or even when a word in common usage becomes so negatively charged that an entirely new term must be used lest one inflict emotional pain on another. As annoying and inconvenient as this is (especially given some of the PC terms floating around these days, eesh), I will typically guard my tongue to spare the feelings of others, because hurting peoples' feelings to avoid an expansion of vocabulary is simply counterproductive. I am also not terribly in favor of pretentious BS, and never understood calling someone with a degree and a welding torch an "engineer" vs calling someone without a degree but with the same torch a "welder" or "fabricator". That being said, I also understand that it's nearly impossible to have a serious discussion about something when the mention of a word makes an entire room full of people giggle, or riles the emotions of one or more participants. You can't have a scientific discussion of farts, but you can about flatulence (though perhaps barely).

I'm about as UN-politically correct as they come. I would opt for "mentally retarded son". Why? Because that's what he is. Developmentally disabled? really? The body/mind is/was retarded in it's growth. It was not "disabled". "Disabled" indicates that it was rendered useless. Obviously, if the person is living and breathing, then that simply is not the case. To "retard" something, indicated that it was not allowed to come to it's full maturation. Which usually IS the case in the instance of "mental retardation". Why call a heart, a spade, when it clearly is not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruckerPete

For example, people hear "mentally retarded" and automatically jump to the noun retard.

Second, it's not polite to put the disability before the person. When you do that, you're defining the person by their disability, when they are really a person first.

And of course all this goes out the window when you actually meet someone with a disability, (notice how I didn't say a disabled person!), if they are able to articulate how they would like to be labelled/defined/etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SvartSvensk

the scientific community feels obligated to change its terminology because of something the masses have latched onto, or even when a word in common usage becomes so negatively charged that an entirely new term must be used lest one inflict emotional pain on another.

I will typically guard my tongue to spare the feelings of others, because hurting peoples' feelings to avoid an expansion of vocabulary is simply counterproductive.

This....

There isn't always a "retardation" of the brain. So that is not vaild for a whole population. There are chromosome difference, different syndromes that occur due to genetics... actually, most of the people I serve suffer from different mental illnesses too not to mention physical disabilities, hearing impairments and seeing impairments, verbal impairments. Its not always evident in meeting someone what they are dealing with. I work with a few who were beaten as children until they became disabled and one that I know of that had a really bad fever. There is none to little "retardation" about it. Back in the day they thought that, but now it is known that there are other things at play. So they abandoned ship on that one as much as it became a word to call someone stupid and with a lower IQ so much so that they couldn't achieve things.

The other thing is that TuckerPete pointed out. Its important to put the person before the disability so as to inspire continued learning and growing in them. There is no reason to cause concern in them that they are in some way not capable because in actual fact, persons dealing with cognitive/developmental disabilities have taught me more about living than any "normal" brained people. They are often "smarter" about things that others aren't. They are more themselves, more caring and giving most of the time, and have made me the patient and loving person I am just because they have conjured up my realization that I need to CARE about others as much as I do myself.

In this case I think that a heart is a heart and a spade is a spade,... they just are not evidently so. Thanks for being honest about your ignorance in this TL4. I hope this helps you understand more.

Man this thread is off line isn't it!? I am finding it rather humorous at this point.

Neither have I, and I've had an IUD for three years. I know a girl who got one when she was fifteen (never had a kid either). Actually the one I have is smaller especially to be more practical for women who have never had kids and have a smaller womb (as a result it lasts 5 years instead of 10).
But unless your gynecologist tells you "your womb is tiny - no way you, personally, can wear a regular IUD, you need the smaller type" you can just wear the exact same one as women who've had kids, too.

So, don't let anyone use it as an excuse. Many doctors aren't used to IUDs because they're not used as often as birth control, and mostly used by women who have had kids and don't want more, but it's certainly not a requirement. If your doctor says "can't give you one, you've never had kids", look for another doctor.

While nulliparous women (women who have never given birth) are somewhat more likely to have side effects, this is not a contraindication for IUD use. Overall, IUDs are safe and acceptable also in young nulliparous women.[29] The same is likely the case for virgin women, unless there is a microperforate hymen that obstructs any insertion of the IUD.

The increased risks include a higher risk of expelling it (which is also the case for women who have just given birth or had an abortion). I personally have had no problems, and when I replace it I'm planning to go for a model that lasts ten years instead.

Man this thread is off line isn't it!? I am finding it rather humorous at this point.

Sometimes using a universally understood though universally inaccurate term gets the point across. Thanks for the unending waves of clarification, education, and loving derision.

That said, if folks here have not read anything by Temple Grandin, she's a high-functioning autistic... dammit... If I don't include the word "person" at all does it count for the word order folks? She's a person who functions highly while living with autism. Person. Better? (Not really, it sounds like Temple has a roommate named Autism. Oh, academics, what have you done to our pitiful language?) Anyway, Temple Grandin's books are fascinating as well as insightful. The HBO movie, while interesting, doesn't convey much of how she can help us understand the world better.

Thanking In Pictures or Emergence would be the top of the recommended reading list if interested.

I'm a big fan of males that have decided they're done having kids getting snipped.

For that matter, although more intrusive and harder to get a doctor to agree too, female sterilisation is an option too for women who don't want (more) kids. You have surgical versions (getting your tubes tied) and non-surgical ones (Essure and equivalent, going through the vagina to block the tubes).
I guess a hysterectomy would qualify as well but I doubt doctors would agree to it in the absence of something such as cancer.

Thank you for the info. My friend tried to have an IUD inside her for several months and she loved it but then she had serious issues with it and she had to have it removed, and afterwards she was told by a doctor she wasn't supposed to have an IUD in unless she'd had a recent full term pregnancy/birth. But I guess that's just an individual experience, apparently, and it was the 5 years IUD. Anyway, that was where I got my inaccurate info from. Thanks for setting me straight.

No worries. If you want to try an IUD but are worried about such things happening with you, you can have a doctor measure your womb to see which size would work for you, or if it is too small for IUDs altogether. Which is possible (and possibly what happened to your friend), but not the norm for women who haven't had children.